|
DataMuseum.dkPresents historical artifacts from the history of: DKUUG/EUUG Conference tapes |
This is an automatic "excavation" of a thematic subset of
See our Wiki for more about DKUUG/EUUG Conference tapes Excavated with: AutoArchaeologist - Free & Open Source Software. |
top - metrics - downloadIndex: T t
Length: 8467 (0x2113) Types: TextFile Names: »tsaptalk.tex«
└─⟦3d0c2be1b⟧ Bits:30001254 ISODE-5.0 Tape └─⟦eba4602b1⟧ »./isode-5.0.tar.Z« └─⟦d3ac74d73⟧ └─⟦this⟧ »isode-5.0/doc/tsaptalk/tsaptalk.tex« └─⟦2d1937cfd⟧ Bits:30007241 EUUGD22: P.P 5.0 └─⟦35176feda⟧ »EurOpenD22/isode/isode-6.tar.Z« └─⟦de7628f85⟧ └─⟦this⟧ »isode-6.0/doc/tsaptalk/tsaptalk.tex«
% Use LaTeX to process this file \documentstyle[11pt]{article} \begin{document} \title{A MODEST PROPOSAL} \author{Dwight E. Cass\\ Automation Sciences Laboratory\\ Northrop Research and Technology Center} \date{May 15, 1986} \maketitle \begin{quote}\em This is a transcript of the talk presented to the MAP/TOP Users' Group Meeting on May 15, 1986 in Seattle, Washington. \end{quote} \bigskip I am going to limit my comments today to one particular project which is going on at the Corporate Research and Technology Center. That is not to say that Northrop is not doing other MAP and TOP related projects. There are a number of other opportunities currently being explored, including an RFI which was recently released by our Aircraft Division looking to vendor support headed to MAP and TOP. At the Research Center, we are looking towards long range solutions to Northrop, which is an aerospace vendor. We have a number of unique problems which General Motors doesn't directly address. We have identified two specific problems that we are trying to address. The first problem is a lack of application protocols. This lack has been identified and is being addressed within the MAP and TOP community but is not being addressed quickly enough. The biggest problem that we have seen is that history has shown that the application level protocol development takes as long or significantly longer than the lower level protocols. The second problem that we have seen is that currently we do not have MAP and TOP for all the machines we have throughout the corporation. One of the biggest problems we have is with IBM right now. Over 50\% of the machines that we have in house are IBM equipment. It is not adequate to put Series Ones talking to SNA. ({\em Applause\/}) Our customers are the Department of Defense. He wants us to talk electronically, TODAY! He is not willing to wait. The cause of these problems --- first, MAP/TOP, while unbelievably successfully is still very very young. There is quite a bit more work to be done. All the work that is going on right now that the standards committees are developing must be embodied. We have to continue this level of effort. But, Northrop has its requirements NOW! We need to be able to communicate with the participants electronically. We need to have factory and division-wide networking installed and operational in the '88 to '89 timeframe. We cannot consider continuing to make large investments in SNA. And it is simply not acceptable for Northrop to shutdown its factory for a large period of time to replace existing equipment and throw it out. Finally, any solution that we take, if we choose to do something other than a pure MAP/TOP solution must be consistent with the directions of this body. Two observations to be made at this point. The first is that many of these problems have been solved in the past, though definitely in different environments. There are several other proprietary and research based protocol suites, which address many of these problems. The second observation is that MAP/TOP is a highly layered protocol, and indeed is a subset of ISO. As a matter of fact, it is a walk-through the tree of the ISO protocols. The key here is that layered protocols allow mixing and matching of layers as necessary. We are trying to emphasize here services provided by each layer, not necessarily the implementation of those services at the low level. So the question that we have to ask is, How does Northrop get communications now that would be consistent with MAP/TOP and that would communicate electronically with the DoD? Now, we have to look to the DoD for the solution, and the solution seems to be TCP/IP. This is a protocol suite installed in 1980 on the ARPAnet worldwide internet. It has been mandated for use for all DoD internetworking. It has a high emphasis on reliability and security. It supplies currently virtual terminal service, electronic mail, file transfer services, and a number of other less advertised capabilities. It has wide, wide vendor support. I can go out today and buy TCP for every machine that I have in house, off the shelf, install it easily, and specifically, I can buy TCP/IP for every piece of IBM hardware that I have. TCP/IP specifically supports a very robust transport service, as documented in the National Research Council report comparing TCP/IP to ISO, the functionality of these two protocols are pretty much identical. The other observation here is that TCP/IP, due to it's vendor support and it's openness, has been implemented in board level products. This allows us to place TCP/IP in existing pieces of hardware that are fully loaded, without making major impacts on the CPU capabilities that we have in house. So, how do we construct this solution and stay with where MAP/TOP is going? The only solution seems to be complementary coexistence. We need the best of both worlds. This will give us the opportunity to run today, to run tomorrow, and by the time that the Department of Defense has met ISO, we'll be already there. It is important to emphasize that Northrop is looking for an evolutionary migration path to its communications problems. It is not willing to accept throwing away and starting again. If you are going to talk about coexistence, you are going to have to decide where you are going to join the two protocols. Several places come to mind. One of the earliest proposals was to join at the IP layer. To do this, of course, would require that we implement a full TP4. It didn't seem practical, and it didn't seem to be cost effective, besides the fact that it prohibits us from using board level products. We looked at implementing at the Session layer, but the problem is that above Transport, we start dealing with the problems of the symmetric ISO model versus the client/server ARPA model. The only obvious point was at the Transport Service Access Point. This gave us the capability of using the robust TCP transport service while still allowing MAP freedom to do whatever was necessary at the higher layers, isolating the applications from the reality of whatever they were running. Where are we headed today? At the Research Center we published a proposed Transfer Service Access Point. We then implemented this proposal on a Berkeley 4.2 UNIX system, and have since published this proposal within the ARPA internet community as RFC983. RFC983 fully describes a TP4/TSAP implementation on top of TCP. Everything except for, of course, quality of service is supported within the implementation, because as you know, quality of service is not defined yet. For addressing we have to take TCP/IP-based addressing, however we would be more than happy to start dealing with the addressing issue as the Standards Committees do, and currently we have an implicit maximum TSDU size of 65 Kbytes, but that will be relaxed in the next version. I do have with me today, copies of the RFC and I can get a hold of the source code for you. This is all public domain work. You are all welcome to take it and if you need, work with it. Our next step. What we need next is to put an implementation of Session, FTAM, and CASE on this TSAP. One of the important things here is we can go off and write it, but it would invalidate any hopes of compatibility between MAP and what we're doing. As such, we must find a version of Session, FTAM and CASE intended for a functional MAP system --- hopefully public domain, so we can distribute it to the ARPA internet community. The other thing that we will be doing is implementing this RFC on the other machines currently within Northrop. As a migration strategy to ISO, RFC983 is not planned solely as a migration, but could easily form the backbone for a full migration plan. What we are hoping to do is to fully track what the Department of Defense does over the next several years to yet bring us to ISO when our customers have. In summary, what we think we found is the best of all worlds. We can talk to our customer today with such a capability. We can install and perform research, today. We can develop MAP/TOP applications, today. We can migrate to ISO as our customer does. We solved the security problem for our communications, and reaped the benefit of all the researchers within the Department of Defense internet community. Thank you very much. ({\em Applause\/}) \end{document}